From Moves#35 Modifications and Errata for Conquerors by Richard Berg The following additions, changes, and clarifications are, as usual, the result of a number of friendly - and not so friendly - suggestions from the players. They certainly do not represent the "final word" on either of the games in The Conquerors, and readers are most certainly urged to send in any ideas that they get. Please, however, refrain from such items as "To The Clown That Designed The "Conquerors" - the greeting in an actual letter that did less for the cause of constructive criticism than it did for the Society for Advancement of Literary Apoplexy - unless you are either going to say something constructive or you can be nasty with a little style. In any case, more letters about The Conquerors were directed at The Romans, and most of those were concerned with Supply and Allies. Yes, the Supply system in The Romans is quite restrictive; it is meant to be so. Yet, players will notice that they are rarely stopped from doing anything. It is more that they have to pay extra for what they want to do. Ancient campaigning was an expensive hobby, and the supply rules should reflect that. When determining arguments amongst players you should remember that. I have also tried to re-work some of the Alliance rules as well as the interconnected rules for Sacking, etc. From Richard DeBaun of Fire & Movement I received an excellent - if moralistically suspect - suggestion for selling captured garrisons into slavery, and it is herein included. A further word on the Syrian War scenario is in order. Several problems have arisen with this scenario because of the fact that The Macedonians game-map was designed with a different game in mind - Alexander's campaigns. Thus some of the suggested rules for supply, cities, and so forth given in the scenario do not really seem to fit. Most of the criticism centers around the Naval Base rule - both for Forces and Fleets. With Alexander, the Naval "stretch" is 15, not 20 as with The Romans, and the cities were placed on the map accordingly. This, of course, should not cause any problem with that game-map, per se. But Rhodes, Sestus, and Cnossus should be Naval Bases, and hexes 0117 through 0131 should be considered coastal hexes (for The Romans only). As for tracing supply routes for land forces, the same rules apply - along with the extended use of the Royal Persian Highway. The use of the Macedonians as a third player in The Syrian War scenario is more or less underdone, in terms of rules. It would probably be better if the Macedonian player, in a 3-way game, brought his army up to about 2/3 the strength with which it starts the Macedonian War scenario. Along with this he can add a few commanders: Athenagorus, Philocles, and two others (pick blindly). The Treasury level remains as given (the Macedonians were still suffering from the previous war), but since the Macedonians get more victory points for doing things, that should even out. Remember, the Macedonians can not use the Alliance rules; they can only ally with the Syrians or the Romans. Oh yes, Demetrias begins the game controlled by the Syrians. The possibility of using The Conquerors for other scenarios is quite evident. (See the feedback in an upcoming issue.) I think Charlie Vasey in England is doing one for the Mithridaic Wars, and if anyone else can come up with other such ideas we would be glad to consider them for MOVES. The following corrections and additions refer to specific sections of the rules for The Conquerors. ROMANS 4.1, Sequence of Play Major Change: The Diplomacy Phase (A2, B2) is removed from the individual Player Phases and given its own phase. There is now a Diplomacy Turn prior to the individual Player Turns. The method is the same, except that all actions are simultaneous (and may be written down and revealed when both players are ready). There is no other change in the Diplomacy Phase. MACEDONIANS 5.39 Clarification: This rule applies only to Winter Game-Turns. ROMANS 5.83, 8.43 Clarification: When the Roman Player desires to Forced March with an "untried" commander, he must first announce the intention to Force March and the distance desired; he then checks his commander's ability. If the commander does not have the necessary ability, the March does not take place. ROMANS 5.86 (Forced March Attrition Table) Correction: There is a printing error in this table which has caused no end of confusion. To correct it simply transpose the line of type "Number of Additional Hexes Desired" with the line of type "Commander Strategic Rating." All will now be as clear as a well-run augury. ROMANS 6.57 and MACEDONIANS 6.58 Clarification: The rule states that a nonphasing force may only intercept once in a Campaign Phase. This means it may intercept successfully only once; if it fails it may try again. However, to clarify, a nonphasing force may attempt an interception only once per hex traveled by a moving force. Once it succeeds, it may not try again. ROMANS 8.32 and MACEDONIANS 8.3 Clarification: Using The Romans as an example, the Roman Player may move a Land Force under a tribune 10 movement points to a port, embark the force on a fleet commanded by a legate and move at sea - but only to the extent that the tribune has movement points left. Thus, while the legate is commanding the fleet (he cannot command land forces, as the tribune may not command fleets), the movement points accumulated by the Land Force as per the tribune controls the action. The reverse of the situation is also true. Players should use this example in clarifying what units may do and not do vis a vis this section. ROMANS 10.15 and MACEDONIANS 10.15 Clarification: A Force may not retreat into an enemy-occupied hex. ROMANS 10.22, MACEDONIANS 10.22, and TacGame 2.35 Clarification/Correction: I received several questions about the apparent paradox between these two rules, all of which I answered wrongly! The TacGame 2.35 is wrong; it should read Retreat During Combat. The reason for this is that once the players have made the initial decision to stand, they are considered to have joined battle, regardless of what happens next. Thus the defender who chooses to leave before battle actually starts (although it has been "joined," so to speak) suffers a withdrawal penalty (10.23). The Player exercising the option of TacGame 2.35 also undergoes the penalty of 10.23. ROMANS 11.2 Major Change: Several (and possibly many) players have discovered that it does not pay to build anything but lembi (light vessels) in The Romans. We are about to change that and bring the naval system in The Romans more into line vis a vis the tactical realities of the day. 11.21 remains in effect, but 11.22 is gone. To remove a step from a Heavy Galley requires a CRT loss of 3 points; to remove a Medium Galley step requires a loss of 2 points; a light, only 1. The losses are not cumulative from one turn to the next for a given ship, but they must be apportioned among the galleys in such a way as to take the greatest number of losses in terms of steps eliminated. This now means that 11.23 is also no longer in effect. Furthermore, we now have a slightly changed Naval CRT (see below, 11.5). None of this pertains to The Macedonians. ROMANS 11.5 (Naval CRT) Major Change: Each number loss (e.g. A5, D2, etc.) should have 1 added to it. Thus an A5 becomes an A6 while a * (No Loss) becomes a loss of 1 for the side it pertains to. Thus, a die roll of 2 on the 1-2 column will now read A5/D1. Thus, if the defender has no lembi present in the battle, he will suffer no losses. ROMANS 12.4 and MACEDONIANS 12.4 Addition: For the purposes of embarkation, all islands which have no specific port hex are considered to have port capabilities in any hex. This is for purposes of this section only. (See also clarification for ROMANS 13.28 and MACEDONIANS 13.25 as pertains to this section.) ROMANS 12.16 and MACEDONIANS 12.17 Clarification: If a Land Force making an amphibious landing is forced or decides to retreat and in doing so retreats more than four (Romans)/five (Macedonians) movement points - even if at sea - that Land Force is disrupted. The Fleet is not disrupted. Thus a disrupted force may be debarked, but may move no further. ROMANS 13.28 and MACEDONIANS 13.25 Clarification: Naval units transporting a land force may add their strength to the force assaulting a port (unoccupied), as long as the necessary commander(s) is (are) present. Vis a vis 12.14, a force may be landed in any port hex, regardless of terrain, if that force is assaulting the port. ROMANS 13.4 Clarification: A besieging Player does not have to see the siege through to the end; he may leave the hex without winning the siege. However, if he does so, he must leave the siege hex via the same route (i.e., hexside) by which he entered that hex. Thus a Player moving into Corinth from 5628 may not give up the siege and move into 5429. He must move back to 5628. Note that this clarification should be taken in the spirit of realism/naturalism. Thus a force wishing to besiege Pella (5520) by entering through hex 5521 could fall back on hex 5420 within the spirit of this rule. It's the spirit of the rule that counts - not the letter. ROMANS 13.54 and 16.0 Major Change: Upon careful consideration, the effect of capturing or sacking Allied cities is somewhat simplistic. The following chart reflects the effects of capturing or sacking a potential Ally city, dependent on its current diplomatic status. The number listed are the points "subtracted" from the player vis a vis his diplomatic relationship with that ally/city state/league. City Allied Allied Action Inactive to Enemy to Player Sack -3 -1 -5 Capture -2 0 -4 ROMANS 13.6 SLAVERY New Rule: Any units garrisoning a city that is taken and sacked are sold into slavery. These units are out of the game for all purposes; i.e., the actual counter may not be used as a reinforcement, etc. Furthermore, for each 3 strategic strength points sold into slavery, the victor receives one talent. ROMANS 14.0 General Clarification: Several players wondered and commented about the fact that the supply rules were so restrictive (especially in the light of the clarification of 14.12). These rules are not restrictive; it is the finances that restrict a player. You are virtually free to do anything you wish, as long as you can pay for it. The supply rules simply reflect the enormous costs of campaigning. That they do so abstractly is a problem of the system and level of play chosen combined with some people's tendency to take everything literally. When trying to resolve supply questions the above commentary should be considered. ROMANS 14.12 Clarification: The Supply Radius from a Force to a Naval Base is never traced across sea hexsides or hexes. However, note that a Land Force may be transported by a Fleet outside the Land Force's supply radius without the Land Force being out of supply as long as, (a) the Fleet remains within its Supply Radius, and (b) the Force is debarked within radius of a Land supply source. ROMANS 15.22 Clarification: For the purposes of this section, Merchants are considered to be fleets. ROMANS 16.28 Addition: If all cities of a potential ally are sacked, no troops may be raised by that city state or league. However, if the city state or league has more than one city, and the city of troop origin is sacked, troops may appear in another city of that city state or league, reduced by a ratio according to the number of cities remaining to the number of original cities. ROMANS 17.3 Clarification: Except for the provisions of the new 13.6, counters that are eliminated may be used again as reinforcements, newly raised armies, etc. However, Greek city states and leagues may not be refitted; once reduced, their armies may never be brought back to original strength, even if the Major Player wishes to pay for the refitting. (These city-states rarely had the manpower to recover from losses in so short a time.) Furthermore, the Roman Player may refit his Legions; i.e., bring reduced legions up to original strength. To do so the Legion must be in Supply (anywhere on the game-map) and the necessary talents must be expended as per 17.4. Tribunes remain the same. Also, fleets may be refitted in a like manner (i.e., built from 1/2-strength to full). ROMANS 17.33 Clarification: Players may build Naval Bases in an Allied Port; however, if the ally changes sides, that player loses the naval base, and it reverts to the other player (but would not go against the second player's construction limit of two). Note that you do not need any units present to build a Naval Base; you simply have to have friendly (or allied) control - i.e., be the last to pass a combat unit through. And the construction limit of two applies to at any one time; not the entire game. ROMANS 17.35 Clarification: Forces and fleets may be voluntarily disbanded by failing to maintain them. To be revivified, the player must pay the full construction cost. ROMANS 18.32 (Augury Table) Clarifications.. 2. When the Roman Player has to send a legion to, say, Hispania he simply places it - whether newly built or already on the game-map - in Hispania. If an already existing unit, it must be in supply. To return this unit from Hispania, it must be transported or moved by land. Also, the chosen Praetor is new; not one on the game-map. He is deactivated at the end of the year or after transportation back to Rome. 9. The word "all" should read "each". ROMANS 19.11 and MACEDONIANS 21.12 Clarification: Only pitched battles between forces are considered as Major Land Battles; not sieges or revolts or any similar nonmeeting engagement conflict. ROMANS 20.11 Addition: At the start of the game, the Macedonian player receives Sopater and three hoplites at Chalcis (5727). MACEDONIANS (Turn-Record Track) Addition: The Persian Commander Bessus arrives on turn 18. TacGame 9.35 Addition: Cavalry (when attacked by non-cavalry), and light infantry (peltasts, javelins, archers, cardaces, etc.) - when attacked by non-cavalry - subtract one from the die roll when using 9.33. This is in addition to 9.34. NB submitted by John Kula (kula@telus.net) on behalf of the Strategy Gaming Society (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/~sgs), originally collected by Andrew Webber (gbm@wwwebbers.com)